Auto racing games overview (VERY long)
Henry Vogel
auto racing, covered here, and horse racing. Perhaps that is simply because
there are more auto and horse racing games available than any other type.
Auto racing, though, seems to have far and away the largest number of
different games available. The biggest problem with auto racing is that
people who are auto racing fans rather than gamers design many of the games.
These game designers usually end up designing only one game and, many times,
publish it themselves. As one who has dealt with self publishing (though
comic books rather than games), I certainly respect those who believe in
their game enough to go to the considerable trouble of publishing it
themselves. The question is, how many of these self-published games are,
from a gamer's point of view, worth buying? All of this will, obviously, be
my opinion. I'll add my rating, using a 1 to 10 scale, at the end of each
review.
Here's a list of the games that will be covered:
Stock car racing:
- Stock Car Racing Championship Card Game
- Daytona 500
- Real Action Stockcar Championship
- Bumper-to-Bumper
- Daytona Challenge
- Dice Car
- NASCAR Champions
Formula One:
- Das Motorsportspiel (aka DTM Hockenheim)
- Motorchamp
- Formula De'
- Formula Motor Racing
- Top Race
Other:
- Lunatix Loop
- Carabande
Stock Car Racing Championship Card Game
Players: 4+
Publisher: McGartlin (self-published)
Web: www.racingames.com
I'm going to go over several games in this overview, but this one is the
best of the bunch. Not just the best but also far and away the best. I've
written reviews of this game several times and have reached the point where
I just cut and paste from those old review. This time I cut and pasted from
the review I posted on Boardgame Geek.
While the game is not complicated to play, there are enough details to play
that a description of play would take more space than I want get into right
now. Cutting to the chase -- or the pass, actually -- the heart of the game
centers on the action of passing other cars. To pass the car in front of
him, a player must play one of several Action cards that allow passing. Some
of these cards provide an advantage to the passing car while some provide an
advantage the car being passed. The player whose car is about to be passed
may play a Response card to attempt to stop the challenging car from passing
him. One of the Response cards, the Challenge, is settled by using a 3-digit
number printed on the top of each card in the driver deck. The player who
plays the card with the highest 3-digit number, including any modifications
from the Action card, wins the challenge. Players may choose a card from
their hand or take pot luck by drawing the top card in their draw pile. The
decision as to which card to play for the 3 digit number is not as straight
forward as it sounds. You must consider the value of the card text on the
card (use the card for the 3 digit number or save it to play later for the
card text?), the number of cards your opponent has in his hand and just how
important it is for you to win the challenge at this point in the game.
Hotly contested pass attempts lead to lots of hootin' and hollerin' --
always a good thing, in my opinion. It is this passing system that really
sets the game apart, putting the game's emphasis right where it should be
(as opposed to most racing games where cars pass each other without any real
action).
Some people may be disappointed at the way the current race situation is
displayed. Each Driver Deck has a car printed on the back of the cards
(there are 12 different colors available) and one card is simply placed face
down on the table to represent your car. The other "cars" are lined up to
show the current race standing. The designers encourage players to get
small, 1/64 scale die cast cars to use in place of the cards. I
whole-heartedly agree with this recommendation. I picked up a package of 5
cars at the local Wal Mart for about $5 just to get started. Of course, I th
en spent $10 to get MY car -- a 1/64 replica of Jeff Gordon's Star Wars
Episode One car. None of the people I've played with have been disappointed
with the static display and some of them have even bought their own 1/64
scale cars just to have available when they play the game with me.
As I said in the beginning, this is simply the best car racing game I've
played. It surpassed my previous favorite Das Motorsportspiele (or DTM
Hockenheim as it's also known) and easily outdistances the current fave car
racing game, Formula De. It manages to be both a fun game and a fair
simulation of NASCAR racing. The single biggest problem with this game is
actually getting a copy. One can order it through McGartlin's web, but from
experience I can say that this can prove very frustrating. Be prepared to
wait several months, perhaps longer, if you go this route. Otherwise, you're
only chance is to find a store that has copies in stock. It's a pity this is
such a hard game to get hold of because it truly excellent and worth the
trouble required to find it.
Rating: 10
Daytona 500
Players: 2 to 4, though all 6 cars are in each race
Publisher: Milton Bradley (out of print)
Though this is out of print, Milton Bradley sold about 150,000 copies of the
game. You can almost always find one or more copies for sale on eBay,
usually for well under $20. I have no idea how much the game cost
originally, but it's definitely worth the normal price you'd pay for it off
of eBay.
This is an adaptation, by Wolfgang Kramer (an anomaly in this list - a man
who is a game designer first and foremost), of his game called, I believe,
Nikki Lauda's Formula One. The same game system is used for Top Race (see
below) and Detroit/Cleveland Grand Prix. The basic idea is simple yet
yields plenty of interesting decisions for players. Each player is dealt a
hand of cards. Each card shows anywhere from one to all six of the cars in
the race. Next to each car is a number from one to six. When a card is
played, a car that is shown on the card is moved a number of spaces equal to
the number next to the car. For example, a card might show the black car
with a six, the blue car with a four and the red car with a two. The black
car would be moved six spaces, then the blue car four spaces and finally the
red car two spaces. The interesting part is that the player who plays the
card moves the cars, even the cars the player does not own. As a matter of
fact, unless a player is dealt an astounding hand, he won't have sufficient
movement points to get his car across the finish line by himself.
Before the race begins, the six cars are auctioned off in random order.
Players bid based on the cards in their hand. Careful consideration has to
be given here as the bidding can easily reach a level where the car must win
for the owner to show any real profit from the race. The player who wins
the auction also gets to add a card to his hand that moves the car he just
bought nine spaces. Once all the cars have been auctioned, play starts with
the player who bought the first car in the auction. Play continues until
all the cars have crossed the finish line or none of the players have cards
left. Note that each player only continues to play while he has cars in the
race. Because of this, the last place car sometimes never completes the
race, meaning no prize money for the owner of that car. The final
complication in the game revolves around the two turns on the track. All
cars must begin and end their movement in the inside lane of the turn. The
"passing lane" is composed of half-length spaces, meaning that it takes
twice as many spaces to pass a car as normal. The curves provide the best
opportunity to get rid of cards with high movement numbers for cars you don'
t own. At the best, it may be impossible to move the car at all. At worst,
at least some of the movement points will be used up getting around other
cars.
Daytona 500 is an excellent game, one I believe any race fan would want to
own.
Rating: 8
Real Action Stockcar Championship (RASC)
Players: 2+
Publisher: Real Action Games (self published)
Web: www.realaction.com
For a self-published game, the components are really quite nice. The game
board is nicely mounted, large and double sided, with a track on each side
of the board. The only chart required is printed on the board, as is an
area for tracking the number of laps run. Game play is straightforward and
easy to learn. The game uses an interesting dice mechanic unlike any other
I've seen. Each of the six-sided dice (there are four dice, total) has the
following on its six sides: Min, Max, TI (Track Incident), +1 and +2. I
believe the +1 appears twice. Each of the tracks is rated with a minimum
and maximum movement. The "super speedway" in the game is rated with a
minimum speed of 15 and a maximum of 18. Players roll two, three or four
dice - their choice - then select the single best result from any one of the
dice. If +1 or +2 are rolled, the number is added to the minimum movement.
A roll of Min results in moving the minimum while Max results in moving the
maximum. For example, if a player rolls four dice and gets Min, +1, +1, and
Max, the player would obviously select Max and move his car 18 spaces. If
two of the dice rolled result in TI, the player must roll two standard six
sided dice and consult the Track Incident table. Track incidents results in
anything from reduced movement for a turn to being out of the race. So, the
choice comes down to the number of dice to roll. Rolling more dice
increases your chances of getting a good result as well as increasing your
chance of rolling TI on two dice.
RASC is also one of only two games that take into account the fact that
there is more to passing the car in front of you than simply having the
faster car (the McGartlin card game is the other). In RASC, you must stop
moving your car when it pulls next to a car that started the turn ahead of
it in the race. After all players have taken their turn, these contested
positions are resolved by having each player roll a 10-sided die. High
number wins. Track position is taken into account in some places in the way
of spaces with negative numbers in them. The numbers, either -1 or -2, are
combined with the movement roll as well as a roll for passing.
The cars that come with the game are rather nice looking plastic stock cars
in 10 different colors. The game board is designed to allow 1/144 scale die
cast cars to be used, which really improves the look of the game. I have a
bunch of these little cars but, unfortunately, they are no longer in
production. The next best thing would be to pick up some of the Micro
Machines stock cars and use them. They're a bit bigger than 1/144 scale,
but they fit the spaces just fine.
Overall, RASC is a pretty good little game. It's easy to teach and play and
is an excellent intro racing game for young players. It also works well for
older players looking for a light racing game. My son, who is not quite
five, enjoys playing the game with me (and I can use it to build some early
counting skills - something most race games are good for). The biggest
problem I see is that the decision-making is relatively minimal and success
at passing is entirely random. The creator of the game is currently working
on advanced rules to add more detail to the game. I'm looking forward to
the release of those rules, as I believe the game needs that extra detail.
I've been working on some house rules to put some more strategy, in the form
of some card play, into the game. If anyone is interested in the rules I'm
considering, feel free to contact me by e-mail for the details.
Rating: 6 (could go higher if add on rules are good)
Bumper-to-Bumper
Players: 2 to 10
Publisher: A Work of Art (self published)
This is another dice driven stock car racing game, though it has some
interesting decisions available to the players. On his turn, a player may
choose to roll two dice (regular six siders) and move that many spaces, to
take six, meaning to move your car six spaces without rolling or to draft
the car in front of you, which allows you to move the same distance as the
car in front of you moves. Drafting must be declared before the player
controlling the car ahead of you announces whether he's going to roll the
dice or take six. If a player rolls snake eyes, they must roll again using
a table printed on the board. The table includes very high movement (moving
13 to 16 spaces) and the normal array of bad things, including crashing out
of the race. If a car crashes out of the race, it takes out every car that
ends its move in the row of spaces directly in front, behind and next to the
car that crashed. Passing, as with most games, is simply a result of moving
more spaces than the car you are passing. As with RASC, the board is
designed for 1/144 scale cars (it even comes with the same plastic cars that
come with RASC).
This is another good intro game for younger players but also works well for
older players looking for a light racing game. I think the publisher of
this game has gone out of business. At the very least, their web site no
longer exists. However, anyone who wants a copy can probably get it through
the folks at Real Action Games, as they carry it and seem to still have
copies available.
Rating: 6
Daytona Challenge
Players: 2 to 10
Publisher: Whalen2
This game was first releases as a three-dimensional game board with
high-banked turns, grandstands and all sort of other great eye candy. I got
that one when Boulder Games was closing out their stock. The price was down
to just under $50 from a starting point of $120. What did I get for my $50?
Basically, I got a great toy for my son. As game, it's got about as many
decisions to be made as Candyland.
Game play is very simple. You spin a spinner to determine your "qualifying
speed". You roll a single, 10-sided die to determine how far you move. The
die has the numbers 7, 8 and 9 on it as well as one C (for card). If you
roll 7, that's how far you move. If you roll C, you draw a card and do what
it tells you to do. Sometimes, you get to draw a card and save it to play
later. These cards either add to or max out your movement on the turn you
play the card. In other words, choosing when to play one of the "save"
cards - if you get one - is the only real "choice" you have during the game.
The game was marketed as a "racing collectible" rather than a game and it's
obvious why. Don't waste your money unless you want another track for RASC
or Bumper-to-Bumper.
Whalen2 seems to have gone out of business, too. They used to have a web
site, but it's gone.
Rating: 2 (entirely because of the components)
Dice Car
Players: 2 to 10
Publisher: Table Top Racing
Web: www.dicecar.com
I just got this game and haven't had a chance to play it yet. However, it
looks like it's pretty much another dice fest. Roll three standard six
sided dice and move the total of the dice. If two dice come up the same
number, your car can change lanes twice during the turn. If you roll
triples, you can change lanes three times. A successful pit stop yields a
card that may be saved and used whenever the player wishes. The cards tend
to do bad things to other cars or allow you to move extra spaces, change
lanes or draft the car in front of you. The board is really a large, felt
mat with a track drawn on it. It's scaled for 1/64 scale cars, which
players provide themselves. I applaud the choice of scale as 1/64 scale
cars are easy to find and not all that expensive. From a gamer's point of
view, though, there's just not that much "game" to be found here.
Rating: 2
NASCAR Champions
Players: 2 to 5
Publisher: Milton Bradley (out of print)
You could call this game Daytona 500 Lite. It's got the idea of car
ownership and has some interesting card based options that allow you to
"sponsor" another car. Five special six-sided dice control movement. The
dice have to be put together using stickers. There's one sticker for each
of the five cars on each die plus another sticker I just can't remember
right now. Players roll all five dice, selecting three of those dice to use
for movement. The numbers on the dice, which are all the same on a die (in
other words, there's a die with all ones, a die with all twos, etc),
determine the number of spaces moved or whether a card is drawn. As with
Daytona 500, a player may end up moving a car that doesn't belong to him.
The cards provide for instant benefits such as extra movement as well as
making a player a "sponsor" of another car. The sponsorships, which are
kept secret, provide benefits to the sponsoring player if the car they are
sponsoring does well. This can really change a race as you may suddenly
find two players interested in helping along the same car. Each race is one
lap with a full game consisting of two races. The player with the most
money wins.
This game can readily be picked up from eBay for $10 to $20 and is well
worth it if you have some younger players. It's a game that requires enough
thought for an adult to enjoy playing it but is simple enough that young
players will understand the game (though very young players may need help
reading the cards). If your gaming group is entirely adult, though, stick
with Dayton 500.
Rating: 6
Das Motorsportspiel (aka DTM Hockenheim)
Players: 2 to 12
Publisher: ProMotorsport Spiel
This is sometimes known of as the "racing game in a tube" because it comes
in a long, plastic tube. The track is huge, about six feet long and close
to three feet wide, and printed on light weight plastic that rolls up to fit
into the tube. Plus, the game comes with some of the coolest cars available
in a racing game. The cars are 1/87 (HO) scale European touring cars and
are truly excellent. The game play is interesting, too.
Movement, as usual, is handled by rolling dice. There are two standard
six-sided dice and one six-sided die with the digits 1, 2 and 3 appearing
twice each. A player rolls the dice but may opt to change them by flipping
them over to the exact opposite side. For example, if you roll a one on a
standard six-sided die, you could flip that over to the six that is on the
other side. I find this an interesting mechanism that puts some choice into
the play and off sets the luck of rolling the dice. The player must also
place the dice rolled into the order in which they will be used. For
example, if a player rolled a 6, a 4 and a 3, for reasons that will be seen
in a moment the player may choose to use the dice in the order 3, 6 then 4.
The order of the dice IS important, too. Here's why:
Curves have posted maximum speeds. While a car is in a curve, it cannot use
a die for movement that has a number higher than the maximum speed without
earning a flag (more on flags later). Using the die roll example above, if
a player was in a curve with a max speed of three, he would choose to use
the die with the 3 first so he could move out of the curve before using the
higher dice. (And, if the first three didn't move the car out of the curve,
the 4 could be flipped to a 3 and, if necessary, the 6 to a 1.) Also, a car
may only change lanes when using a die with a number that appears diagonally
on the die (on a standard six-sided die those numbers are two, three and
five). Players must look ahead and determine when they will have to change
lanes to get around other cars and choose the order of the dice
appropriately. Moving in a curve using a die with a number higher than the
curve's max speed or having movement points left over at the end of a turn
(due to be blocked) earns flags for the players. As flags accumulate, the
chances of being knocked of the race increases, too. A player may make a
pit stop to remove the flags.
So, all of this is pretty straightforward and not so tough, right? And it
would be, too, if there wasn't a timer involved. Each player has 30 seconds
to roll the dice, flip those he wishes to flip, put them in order and move
his car (we give more time to new players). Failure to finish in time earns
the player a flag. The timer is really what makes the game. Without it,
you have a game that is far too easy. With the timer, you have a game that
does the best job of giving players the "feel" of racing as you must make
important decisions quickly. And, as in real racing, making the wrong
decision can be very costly.
Rating: 9
Motorchamp
Players: 2 to 8 (up to 10 with the expansion teams)
Publisher: AZA Spiele
Web: www.aza-spiele.de
Without question, I believe this is the best looking racing game available.
Yes, Formula De fans, the FD boards look good, but the boards for Motorchamp
look at least as good and the cars are vastly superior. The cars, in fact,
are the only ones capable of matching the cars that come with Das
Motorsportspiel for overall coolness. The game comes with 8 pairs of cars,
each pair having identical paints schemes but different numbers on the cars,
a matching set of three dice for each team of cars and three game boards
with track printed on both sides. The game boards can be put together to
create 12 different tracks, four short tracks that use on two boards and
eight long tracks that use all three boards. There are also lots of little
bits used to track laps and pit stop status. So, while the game is
expensive, you get plenty of bang for your buck.
As you'd expect from the "matching set of three dice" bit above, this game
uses dice for movement. The dice are similar to those in Das
Motorsportspiel in that you have two standard six sided dice and one die
with the digits, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 and 3. The color of the space your car is on
at the start of its turn determines how many dice you may roll. If your car
is on a light gray space, you may roll three dice, two dice for medium gray
and one die for dark gray. You may choose to roll fewer dice, perhaps
because the track ahead is blocked or due to a "speed limit" (more on that
in a moment). However, once you choose the number of dice to roll, you
simply roll them and move your car that number of spaces. The "speed limit"
I just mentioned is a number printed next to some of the spaces on the
track. If your car is starting from a space with such a number, that speed
limit applies to your car for that turn. For example, a car could be on a
light gray space (roll three dice) but have a speed limit of 12. As long as
the total you roll is less than or equal to 12, you have no problems. That'
s one reason you may choose to roll only two dice even though you are
allowed to roll three. And going over the speed limit is definitely
something to be avoided, as is ramming other cars from behind.
So what happens if you go over the speed limit or ram another car? That
depends on how much you go over or how many spaces you have left to move
when you ram another car. If your roll is only one higher than the speed
limit, a 13 when the limit was 12, for example, your car spins out. Move
your car 13 spaces then put it off the track next to the 13th space facing
backwards. If you ram a car with only one movement point left, your car
also spins out. A car recovers from a spin out as other cars pass its
position. When the first car passes the spun out car, you turn the spun out
car around to face forwards. When the second car passes it, you place it
back on the track. All right, we've covered what happens if your roll is
just one higher than what you want. What happens if your roll is two or
more higher than the speed limit or you have two or more spaces left to move
when you ram a car? Simply put, your car crashes and is out of the race.
The game also includes an easy to learn slipstreaming rule and one pit stop
is required from each car. The results of failing to make a pit stop are
very bad. You can only roll one die each turn until such time as you make a
pit stop. Races are run for six laps and most players will, at some point,
experience a spin out or a crash. It's because of the possibility of
crashing that each player runs a team of cars.
From what I've read, opinions on this game are highly divided. There are
those who like it and those who simply can't stand it. I'm in the group
that likes the game. The luck of the die roll does tend to even out through
out a full race. I've also found that careful movement can leave you well
positioned for your next turn. For example, in one game I played there was
a particular space that was the best position to be in approaching one of
the turns. Those of us who paid attention to what we were doing were able
to land our car in that space every time (unless, of course, some other
player was already in that space). There's no way we could have done
something like that if the game was completely luck driven.
Rating: 9
Note: AZA Spiele also produces Turfmaster, an excellent horse racing game.
Last year, the fine folks at AZA flew me to Germany, at their expense, to
participate in their yearly Turfmaster tournament. I stayed at their home
(AZA Spiel is a husband and wife company - he designs the games and she
produces them). For that reason, there is absolutely no way I can be
completely unbiased about any game these people produce. However, I can
safely say that I would have thoroughly enjoyed Motorchamp even if I hadn't
gotten the free trip to Germany.
Formula De'
Players: 2 to 10
Publisher: Eurogames
Web: www.formula-de.com
This is so well known that I doubt I really have to go into any detail
concerning game play. Still, there may be some people who aren't familiar
with the big dog in the racing game market, so here goes.
The basics of the game revolve around gear selection for your car.
Depending on the gear you select, you roll either a four-sided, six-sided,
eight-sided, 10-sided, 12-sided or 20-sided die. The numbers on the dice do
not all start at one. For example, the 20-sided die has numbers from 21 to
30 on it. Jumping gears can cause damage to your car, so smooth gear work
is important. The turns on the track all have a set number of "stops" that
you must make to successfully navigate the turn. For example, to navigate a
turn rated 2, your car would have to stop - i.e. end its turn - twice within
the turn. Once that is done, you would be free to accelerate out of the
turn in as high a gear as possible. Each car has a certain number of wear
points for things like tires, brakes and the engine. If you fail to make
the correct number of stops in a turn, for instance, you would mark off tire
wear (or brake wear if you decided to brake hard and stop in the turn).
The game comes with two tracks on a double-sided board, 10 plastic grand
prix cars and the six dice required to play the game. There are also well
over 20 extra tracks that can be purchased for the game. The game boards
themselves are quite attractive, second only to the boards in Motorchamp, in
my opinion. The place where the game seems to fall down, at least for me,
is that people who play the game tend to carefully count out the spaces
between them and the next turn before selecting a gear and rolling the
correct die. I think racing games should be played, well, quickly.
Min/maxing your turn by carefully counting everything just doesn't fit my
idea of a racing game. This, of course, is not a problem with the game as
much as it is with the players. I would tend to favor a house rule giving a
player about five seconds to select a gear then move on with die rolling.
Formula De' is a good game. I just don't happen to like it as much as
several of the other games mentioned in this overview. Given a choice, I'd
rather play the Stock Car Racing Championship card game, Das
Motorsportspiel, Motorchamp or Daytona 500. However, this is a good racing
game that is easy to teach, can be quick to play and has enough tracks
available - albeit for a hefty chunk of change - to provide lots of game
play without getting repetitive.
Rating: 7
Formula Motor Racing
Players: 2 to 6
Publisher: GMT Games
Web: www.gmtgames.com
A lot of words have been used to describe this game since it was released a
few months ago. Luck-based, chaotic, filler and fun are the ones I've seen
most often. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of those. The game is
luck-based; though after a few plays I think I'm beginning to develop a
strategy. It certainly can be chaotic as the game situation changes so
rapidly that it is virtually impossible plan ahead. It plays fast enough to
be a filler game at the end of the evening or at the beginning while waiting
for everyone to arrive.
Game play is simple. Each player is dealt a hand of five cards. Some of
the cards are color coded, meaning they only work for the cars that are that
color. The rest of the cards work for any of the cars, though have position
restrictions. The cars, 12 plastic ones in six different colors, are simply
lined up to show their relative position in the race (similar to the Stock
Car Racing Championship card game in this respect). Playing a card allows
you to move a car forward a certain number of positions or cause a car to
drop backwards one position. The color coded cards also allow
slipstreaming, meaning the car behind the car moved also goes forward that
number of positions. From a strategy point of view, you rarely have the
cards that match your car color. The idea would be to wait until one of
your cars is behind a car matching the color of the card in your hand and
then play that card. The problem is that things change so much, chances are
you won't be able to set this situation up yourself. The good part, though,
is that things change so much that you're likely to find your car in the
position you want at some point during the race.
Like I said at the beginning, this is a light game, not one to be taken
seriously. As long as it is approached in that way, it can be a lot of fun.
Rating: 7
Top Race
Players: 2 to 6
Publisher: ASS (English rules translation available online - the Game
Cabinet maybe?)
This is Wolfgang Kramer's update of Nikki Lauda's Formula One. It uses the
same mechanism as Daytona 500 though adds a betting mechanism to the mix.
The betting system is good and, perhaps, worth porting over to Daytona 500.
At three points in the race - at the one quarter, half way and three quarter
marks - players may "bet" on the car they believe will win. No money
changes hands at any point. Depending on how well the car you select does
in the race, you either win money or pay money. The risks of picking
incorrectly are lowest at the one quarter mark while the rewards for picking
correctly at that mark are highest. The risks for picking incorrectly at
the three quarter mark are highest while, of course, the rewards are lowest.
The betting bit adds some flavor to the game and gives a player who was
dealt a poor hand a chance to win money without doing well in the race. The
only other difference, of course, is the game board. The track in Top Race
has two chicanes where the track narrows down to one lane. These can be
real killers as a single car can cause a bottleneck that allows one or two
cars to break far ahead of the rest of the pack.
At last check, Funagain had this game in their catalog (Boulder does not
list it currently). However, it is a good bit more expensive than a copy of
Daytona 500 is off of eBay. Top Race is a very good game, but I prefer the
version found in Daytona 500 and, given the difference in price you'll
likely run into, can't really recommend this version.
Note: Mayfair publishes Detroit/Cleveland Grand Prix, which uses the same
mechanism and can be purchased in stores for a good bit less than you'd pay
for Top Race. I haven't played the tracks that come with D/C, so can't
comment on that part. However, D/C may be the easiest version of this type
of game to find.
Rating: 7
Lunatix Loop
Players: 3 to 6
Publisher: Locust Games (limited print run, sold out)
Web: www.leacock.com/locust/index.html
This is an odd little game about racing Trebants. A Trebant, for those of
you who don't know, is an awful little car that came with a two-stroke
engine. It was produced in the former East Germany. Obviously all the
German auto engineers stayed in West Germany. Anyway, the person behind
Locust Games had the sick idea of creating a racing game featuring this fine
example of automotive engineering. The resulting game was desktop published
with a print run of 200. I managed to snag a copy from the publisher and am
rather happy I did.
Each player has a speedometer and, of course, a car on the race track. The
speedometer has two pawns on it, one marking your current speed and other
marking your car's current maximum speed (which can change as your car
receives damage or is repaired). Each player also has four actions cars:
Ram, Brake, Accelerate and Drop. Before a turn begins, players select the
action card they wish to use that turn and place it face down in front of
them. Cards are revealed at the same time. The cards also have numbers
printed on them and these numbers control turn order. The player who played
the lowest numbered card goes first and so on up the line. Ties are broken
based on speed and track position. The Accelerate card allows you to change
your car's speed by 0 to 20 mph, in 10 mph increments. You may also choose
to use the Turbo boost, which may accelerate your car more than 20 mph in
the turn or, possibly, damage your car. The Brake card allows you to
decrease your car's speed by 0 to 40 mph, again in 10 mph increments. The
Ram card, as you might guess, allows you to ram an opponent's car, doing,
one hopes, more damage to the opponent's car than you do to your own car
(dice are rolled to determine damage for rammed and ramming cars). Finally,
the Drop card allows you to drop spikes, oil or glue on the track. Spikes,
the more useful thing to drop in my opinion, damage any car that runs over
spikes. Glue slows a car down for the turn it runs over the glue. Running
over oil forces the player to draw a Hazard card. Hazard cards may do
nothing or may indicate some kind of trauma - always mental (thus, the
"Lunatix" in the title) - suffered by your driver. These traumas may reduce
your maximum speed or make it impossible for you to choose a specific action
card. Hazards may be eliminated by visiting the pits, where your driver can
pick up motivational tapes to help him overcome his trauma. Really, I'm not
making this up! Each player has three luck chips which may be discarded to
allow the player to ignore a card that was drawn and draw again.
Movement is very simple. A car moves one space for every 10 mph of current
speed. A car traveling at a speed of 100 mph would move 10 spaces. Curves
have maximum speeds associated with them. Unlike most other games, though,
taking a curve at a higher speed doesn't do damage to you car. In Lunatix
Loop, you must draw a Hazard card for every 10 mph your car is over the
maximum safe speed.
Not a game to be taken seriously, Lunatix Loop is lots of strange and wacky
fun.
Rating: 8
Carabande
Players: 2 to 8
Publisher: Goldsieber
Carabande is unlike any other racing game on the market. It's a game of
dexterity rather than strategy. Play is simple. The game comes with pieces
of track, curved and straight, that are used to create a racetrack. Every
track piece has a wall on one side. The curves have the wall along the
outside of the curve while the one for straight pieces will vary, depending
on how you choose to set it up. Once the track is constructed, players use
their fingers to flick wooden disks, with stickers showing race cars, along
the track. Unlike most race games, play continues in the original order of
play regardless of the position of the cars. The first car to complete
three laps wins the race. There are really on three rules to the game
beyond what I've mentioned. First, if your car goes off the track, the car
is returned to where it began the turn and your turn is over. Second, if
you knock another player's car off the track, both cars are returned to
where they started and your turn is over. Third, if your car flips over,
your next turn will consist solely of turning the car right side up. We
have added a couple of house rules to those. First, you must flick your car
in a "forward" direction on the track. Second, if your car begins on the
track and ends on the track, it's a valid move. The first house rule was
put in place to stop players from abusing the second house rule and flicking
directly off the track in hopes of skipping large segments of track.
Of all the games I've covered, this is easily the most original. It's also
one of the most fun game, racing or non-racing, that I own. Even non-gamers
can usually be convinced to try out the game. Rarely has anyone told me
they didn't enjoy the game. It's particularly recommended for cookouts and
parties as it places quickly and is very easily explained. Highly
recommended!
Rating: 10
That pretty much wraps this up. I'd be interested in hearing if people
found this interesting and useful. And, obviously, I'd love to hear about
racing games I haven't covered here!
Henry
to...@panix.com
my copy of the McGartlin game and finally play the darn thing. :)
Some games you didn't cover:
Speed Circuit (3M, later Avalon Hill) - haven't tried it, but a lot of
people like it.
Le Mans (Avalon Hill) - tried it and thought it was very dull, although
unlike some of the dogs you mentioned there is probably too LITTLE randomness.
Cars are rated for a number of things including how fast they can go in each
gear, and it looks as if it should be interesting, but the decisions are
just painfully obvious.
Grand Prix (Ravensburger) - the old one, not the recent kid's game. This
game has no luck at all aside from the starting positions, and is probably
not at all realistic. However, it's quite a good little game. Funagain
might have used copies for sale.
Pit Stop (Editriche Giochi, I think) - new game from an Italian company,
with modular board pieces so you can build many tracks (like MotorChamp,
but more so, I gather).
Tacara (Eggert Spiele) - small-press German game which uses vector movement.
I think the basic mechanism makes for a very interesting game (and I had
already been thinking of using something similar), but some of the rules
definitely need tweaking. Worth looking at if you can find a copy.
Formula 1 (Parker Brothers and Waddingtons) - old (1960s) game, not sure
of how interesting it is, but looks as if it might be worth a try.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@panix.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
Mik Svellov
>Formula One:
>- Das Motorsportspiel (aka DTM Hockenheim)
Impressive list, Henry.
But Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters has nothing to do with Formula One racing.
Mik
David Vander Ark
worth mentioning:
Formula 1 by Waddingtons and Parker Brothers is very good. It uses
cardboard dahsboards and players set their speeds, speed translates into
spaces moved. Corners are rated for max speed, and there are penalties
for exceeding the posted limit, if you fail a roll for exceeding the
speed. Players also have "Tactics" cards which insert some random luck
into the game (move an extra 3 spaces, accelerate immediately to 120,
etc.) and when you pit you take a Pit Stop card which either gives you a
fast or a slow stop. Tire and brakes wear out by exceeding safety
speeds, and the indicators for these critical components are dials on
the dashboard under the speedometer and next to the lap counter. You
race painted metal Monopoly cars. Wonderful game with the kids!
Speed Circuit by 3M and later Avalon Hill. Similar movement mechanic as
Formula 1. Better because it has 3 different tracks, plus includes
rules for custom building your car to maximize performance. Sort of a
cult classic, well worth picking up if you're a race game fan.
D'raf by Splotter. Odd race game where you lay tiles representing a
freeway. Of course, there are obstructions on the freeway, and your
goal is to avoid the obstacles your opponents lay in front of your car.
The winner is the first person to drive his or her car to the end of the
table and off. I haven't played Lunatix Loop, but I think it's probably
got the same feel.
David
Remove "no spam" to email me
RRI1
>Some games you didn't cover:
>
>Speed Circuit (3M, later Avalon Hill) - haven't tried it,
>but a lot of people like it.
Based loosely on F1 Racing in the 60's.
At the start you set up your car by assigning 5 prep points in 5 areas: start
speed, acceleration, deceleration, top speed, tire wear.
Each turn, the players secretly write down the speed they want to move on the
next turn. Then the players move in order of their current position in the
race. You move 1 space per 20 mph. The curves have a speed limit, though
you may follow the best line at a 20 mph higher limit.
There are some catches:
- In the curves, if you move faster than the limit or if you break faster than
your decelerating rating, you must take 1 or more wears or chance a spinout or
crash. If exceed by 20, you, lose a wear or take a chance roll. Exceed by 40,
2 wear OR 1 wear & 1 chance roll. There are additional penalties at 60 and 80
over the limit.
- For overaccelerating or moving at a top speed at 20 mph over your rating,
you have 1 in 6 chance of damaging your engine and lowering the top speed and
acceleration rating to the lowest level. A second time, blows your engine
eliminating you from the race.
- At the start, you can attempt a fast start 20 mph over your start speed.
However if you fail, you stall and do not move. Stall twice, you are out.
3 tracks were included: Monaco, Watkins Glen and Monza are included in the game
and others were available in tubes.
The 3M version was similar except:
- setting up your car was done by randomly drawing a card. (The prep point
rule was optional)
- No random elements were included in the game. (Which makes the game too
predictable, IMHO.)
- Speedomoter discs were used to choose speed rather than writing.
- The tracks are printed on a plastic board that surrounded the box.
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
The Maverick
>
> I love racing games. I'm not sure why, but I do.
Me too (except that I know why I do...) ;-)
Others interested in this genre might want to check out the brief
reviews of motor racing board games posted at
http://people.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida/text_files/mrbg-rev.html.
You are missing out on what I think are three of the best games on the
subject (although your focus seems to be more on NASCAR while my
interests tend toward F1/CART): Formula 1 (Waddington/Parker Brothers),
Speed Circuit (3M/Avalon Hill), and Le Mans (Avalon Hill.) Formula 1
and Le Mans were were contemporaries, both appearing around the early
60's (although I am not sure which came first.) Speed Circuit followed
about a decade later. All three allow the driver to set the speed of
the vehicle (with limitations) rather than relying on dice for
movement. Each game has a slightly different focus/flavor, but all
three games have strong points which should appeal to racing fans.
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Timothy Hyde
This is a game we still drag out for
friends on occassion.
Quite exciting at times
heading through corners
slightly over speed with the wheels screaming
quitecut throat in the chicanes
and fairly quick to learn.
Down sides.
The Pit Rules are a bit obscure
and a design fault lets you belt down the front straight
at full speed and automatically spin out
with no damage at corner one.
We developed a house rule that you suffered X
amount of damage for auto spin out
which eliminated this tactic.
Well worth a look
Timothy Hyde
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are the 17 Magic Words That Bring You Riches
http://www.roibot.com/mw.cgi?R2970_campaign
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Maverick
>
> Formula One - Waddingtons
[snip]
> Down sides.
> The Pit Rules are a bit obscure
They seem pretty straighforward: Enter your pit by exact count. Draw a
Pit card. You will either lose your next turn (or two) or continue the
race on your next turn. Which part is the hang up?
> and a design fault lets you belt down the front straight
> at full speed and automatically spin out
> with no damage at corner one.
>
> We developed a house rule that you suffered X
> amount of damage for auto spin out
> which eliminated this tactic.
The spin out with no tire or brake wear bothered me as well... but I
haven't played enough to tell if this tactic would be very effective
against cars that still have tires and brakes left.
Scott Alan Woodard
Scott Alan Woodard
ogm...@earthlink.net
"Timothy Hyde" <th...@achieving.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B36E1E7...@achieving.com.au...
Clinton Randel Paris
--
Clinton Randel Paris (crp...@qwest.net)
http://www.users.qwest.net/~crparis/
> "Scott Alan Woodard" <ogm...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:4gIZ6.741
> $MK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Richard Dewsbery
Unless you're counting the version they sold with 1:87 scale F1 cars (as a
change from the usual touring cars)
Richard
Christopher Bourassa
of these games, but I haven't played or seen the others. Thanks for taking the
time to post this, Henry. However, I would like to make one request of you and
all others who post reviews. I think a scale of 1-100 works much better than a
1-10 scale. Two games could be an 8, for example, but one might clearly be
better than the other. If one game received an 82 as opposed to an 89, you
could more readily see the difference between the two in the mind of the
reviewer. Thanks again.
Timothy Hyde
but could be interesting
how about this then
~~~~
Greek Hostage Crisis
Hera battles Zeus and Friends
Wife approved card fun
~~~~
Timothy Hyde
Blue Mountains Australia
Dave Eggleston
> Hera battles Zeus and Friends
> Wife approved card fun
[ San Marco ]
Split it up two ways
Last round - Hey, look! Four Doge cards!
A fockin' headache
---
[ Carcassone ]
Cute widdle meeples
Rehashed "pipe game" mechanics -
SDJ, my ass
---
That was fun. ;->
- d
The Maverick
>
> However, I would like to make one request of you and
> all others who post reviews. I think a scale of 1-100 works much better than a
> 1-10 scale. Two games could be an 8, for example, but one might clearly be
> better than the other. If one game received an 82 as opposed to an 89, you
> could more readily see the difference between the two in the mind of the
> reviewer. Thanks again.
But what if two games were ranked at 89???
Using a scale of 1-1000 would probably prevent this duplication from
happening too frequently. Then we could really see what the reviewer
thinks of the games!
Of course, I'm still not sure what useful difference there is between
"82 and 89" or "820 and 890" vs. someone rating comparanbly good games
as "8." ;-)
Henry Vogel
"RRI1" <rr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010624194233...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
<snipping stuff on Speed Circuit>
> The 3M version was similar except:
> - setting up your car was done by randomly drawing a card. (The prep
point
> rule was optional)
> - No random elements were included in the game. (Which makes the game
too
> predictable, IMHO.)
> - Speedomoter discs were used to choose speed rather than writing.
> - The tracks are printed on a plastic board that surrounded the box.
>
> Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Speed Circuit was the first "gamer's" game I ever owned. I got the 3M
version for Christmas way back in '68 when I was 11 years old. I left the
game out of the review because I haven't played it so long that I didn't
feel it would be fair to include it. However, before I stopped playing the
game it had reached the point of predictability that Richard made above.
Before a race started, based on starting position and car design, I could
tell you exactly who was going to win the race. After reaching that point,
I didn't bring the game out very much any more (besides, no one would play
it with me). Alas, I gave it away not long after getting married. Despite
how the game ended up, I still have a fond place in my gaming heart for
Speed Circuit.
Henry
Henry Vogel
"The Maverick" <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:3B36E3A9...@volcano.net...
Yes, I do tend to prefer NASCAR to Formula One. Strangely enough, I
developed that preference because of the McGartlin Stock Car Racing Card
game. The game taught me enough of the strategy associated with oval track
racing that I was able to appreciate what was happening on the track.
Thanks for the link, I'll look into it! I used to own Speed Circuit (the 3M
version) but, when no one would play the game with me, I gave it away. That
was many years ago, when an Apple ][+ was a hot personal computer and no one
even considered anything like eBay. For me, Speed Circuit reached a point
where it was simply too predictable, at least with the people I was able to
convince to play the game. As for Le Mans and Formula 1, I've been tempted
to pick them up from eBay but haven't done so yet. This is partially
because the prices tend to go up quickly for those games. But I also have a
difficult time getting the gaming group I joined after moving to Raleigh,
NC, to play racing games. Racing games just aren't as popular with these
guys as they were with my old group in Greenville, SC. (Note, this isn't
meant as a cut on the new gaming group, which is a fun group to game with.
They just have different tastes when it comes to racing games than my old
group.)
Henry
Geenius at Wrok
> Greek Hostage Crisis
> Hera battles Zeus and Friends
> Wife approved card fun
Just played "Chinatown."
He who sets terms gets best deals.
(Good tile draws help, too.)
--
"There is no greater joy for me than to find, on self-examination,
that I am true to myself." -- Mencius
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Peter Clinch
AH's monster duel game
what does it all mean?
or perhaps a play report Haiku...
I play a soldier
And then I roll a seven
It is always thus
I choose a transport
It's a magic cloud again
I weep in the woods
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Graham Wills
> I choose a transport
> It's a magic cloud again
> I weep in the woods
Peter wins. It's not only accurate and evocative, but it
sums up a moment and an emotion. Good form.
- Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Richard Dewsbery
> all others who post reviews. I think a scale of 1-100 works much better
than a
> 1-10 scale. Two games could be an 8, for example, but one might clearly
be
> better than the other. If one game received an 82 as opposed to an 89,
you
> could more readily see the difference between the two in the mind of the
> reviewer. Thanks again.
One thing to bear in mind is that when I (and no doubt others) give a game
8/10, I'm saying that many players will enjoy it but a few won't. The
players that enjoy it would give it 89, the players that don't will probably
give it less than 80. As these sort of reviews are _very_ subjective,
asking us to make distintions between, say, 84 and 86 gives the rating
system an undeserved sense of importance and objectivity.
A 10/10, or even a 9/10, is likely to be enjoyed by almost everyone, and
below 5/10 it's unlikely to be enjoyed by more than a few players, and
barely tolerated by many.
FWIW, how I rank games should be interpreted as follows:
10/10 - a classic, it'll be enjoyed by virtually everyone and will be played
repeatedly thanks to its appeal and depth. A giant of the genre (I can never
remember what _actually_ deserves a 10/10 - but I'm pretty impressed by Hare
and Tortoise, others will place MtG and Chess in this rank).
9/10 - a great game, one of that year's top two or three, it'll stand
repeated playing with good depth, but has a small flaw which prevents it
being an all-time great and a few players might not rave about the game
quite as much. Games like Settlers, Princes of Florence, Basari and
Traumfabrik achieve this sought-after accolade.
8/10 - a good game, and worth buying, but some players won't enjoy it so
much. Lord of the Rings, Big City, Doge (in fact, most of the Goldseiber
big-box games), Merchants of Amsterdam. A lot of games belong here, because
whilst good they're not great, some lack long-term appeal, others a good
theme etc.
7/10 - a game that most players will enjoy, some will love, but some won't.
Worth looking at, but in the "try before you buy" category. Games such as
Motorchamp (you either love it or hate it), Magalon, Schrille Stille,
Medieval Merchants, El Caballero - all of which have their fans, _and_ their
detractors.
6/10 - games which appeal to some, but not most. Falwed games that are OK
to play once or twice, or that feel "unfinished". They can still be good,
playable games in the right circumstances, but not one to buy at full price
unless you're _very_ sure. Most Cheapass games belong here.
5 and below, the games are getting increasingly marginal, are likely to be
veto'd after the second play, and aren't worth the money.
Richard
goloma
Thanks for the great reviews. Of the games you mentioned, I've only played
Formula De. Yes, there is some skill and risk involved, but it's the dice
that have the greatest hand in the outcome. But what I like most about the
game is that having to constantly worry about negociating turns and being in
the proper gear really makes it feel like an auto racing game.
Some of the card games you mentioned, e.g. Daytona 500, though they may
require more strategy and be better rounded as games, they seem like games
that are not paricularly inseparable from the auto racing theme; that is to
say that these games could be about anything and that the auto racing theme
just happened to be chosen. I know, I haven't played them, but that's the
feeling I get from your descriptions.
Chris M. Dickson
<ric...@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>FWIW, how I rank games should be interpreted as follows:
>10/10 - a classic, it'll be enjoyed by virtually everyone and will be played
>repeatedly thanks to its appeal and depth. A giant of the genre (I can never
>remember what _actually_ deserves a 10/10 - but I'm pretty impressed by Hare
>and Tortoise, others will place MtG and Chess in this rank).
Here we go bumbling headlong into a meta-topic again:
I respectfully question whether it is more useful, from the perspective
of a reader, to see either
(a) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
to which the reviewer enjoyed and appreciated it
or
(b) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
to which the reviewer expects that any reasonably representative member
of the audience would enjoy and appreciate it.
Would it be more useful to see the two elements separately?
How can one tell from one's own enjoyment and appreciation of a game
whether other people might expect to enjoy it or not?
And while we're on the topic of old-favourite assessment meta-topics,
here are my stances on the holy wars:
1) While mankind cannot meaningfully distinguish between 100 grades,
mankind can meaningfully distinguish between more than 10 grades.
Therefore it is possible for the concept of a "high 9/10" and a "low
9/10" to exist, which means that a 10/10 game is any game you rate
particularly highly compared to the rest of the clutch of 9/10 games.
2) All game ratings are accurate to a tolerance of no better than +/-
2/10 and frequently worse. I am of the camp who would rather play a 5/10
game in 8/10 company than an 8/10 game in 5/10 company.
I never meta-topic I didn't like
Chris
PS If you think I'm talking meaningless waffly crap, you should have
seen this posting before I edited it :-)
--
Chris M. Dickson, Middlesbrough, Great Britain; ch...@dickson.demon.co.uk
Sport Editor, Flagship PBM mag: http://www.antsnest.demon.co.uk/flagship/
Labyrinth Games: puzzle and game consultancy http://www.qwertyuiop.co.uk/
MSO Worldwide -*- Bringing Brains Together -*- http://www.msoworld.com/
Richard Dewsbery
played
> >repeatedly thanks to its appeal and depth. A giant of the genre (I can
never
> >remember what _actually_ deserves a 10/10 - but I'm pretty impressed by
Hare
> >and Tortoise, others will place MtG and Chess in this rank).
>
> Here we go bumbling headlong into a meta-topic again:
>
> I respectfully question whether it is more useful, from the perspective
> of a reader, to see either
>
> (a) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
> to which the reviewer enjoyed and appreciated it
>
> or
>
> (b) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
> to which the reviewer expects that any reasonably representative member
> of the audience would enjoy and appreciate it.
>
> Would it be more useful to see the two elements separately?
I'd hope that we're largely capable of doing the latter; take Motorchamp,
for example - I love it (for me, a 9/10), significant numbers hate it, so I
always gave it a 7/10 - hopefully conveying the message that you should buy
with a degree of caution, but there'll be players who really enjoy it.
Modern Art gets a 9, although I don't particularly like it. Of course, it's
difficult to guage exactly how someone on the opposite side of the world is
going to enjoy the game, but ratings always take into account how others I
played with saw things.
> How can one tell from one's own enjoyment and appreciation of a game
> whether other people might expect to enjoy it or not?
Tricky, but you get a feel for peoples views and preferences by watching the
posts here and playing games with them in RL. For some, the dice in
Settlers are a real issue - I can surmise that the dice in Motorchamp are
likely to cause them the same sort of difficulty. And of course whenever a
new (or newish) game comes out and is played, the 4-5 players chat about
their views of the game as it's being played and once it's over.
> 1) While mankind cannot meaningfully distinguish between 100 grades,
> mankind can meaningfully distinguish between more than 10 grades.
> Therefore it is possible for the concept of a "high 9/10" and a "low
> 9/10" to exist, which means that a 10/10 game is any game you rate
> particularly highly compared to the rest of the clutch of 9/10 games.
>
> 2) All game ratings are accurate to a tolerance of no better than +/-
> 2/10 and frequently worse. I am of the camp who would rather play a 5/10
> game in 8/10 company than an 8/10 game in 5/10 company.
If the ratings are going to be no more than a ball-park estimate with these
wide tolerances, is anything more going to be achieved by saying "a high
8/10" than simply an 8 accompanied by a fuller description?
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Counter's informal "recommended/not
recommended" index either.
Richard
frankvf
> Here we go bumbling headlong into a meta-topic again:
>
> I respectfully question whether it is more useful, from the perspective
> of a reader, to see either
>
> (a) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
> to which the reviewer enjoyed and appreciated it
>
> or
>
> (b) a game assessed (not necessarily numerically rated) upon the extent
> to which the reviewer expects that any reasonably representative member
> of the audience would enjoy and appreciate it.
>
> Would it be more useful to see the two elements separately?
>
Actually, this is a very important topic for those of us who are
interested in owning only
the very best games. I myself, don't buy more than one or two games a
year, so I am
very interested in getting accurate ratings for games. I feel that if
all reviewers rated
games based on the same criteria, the ratings given would be a much
more accurate
indicator of how people feel about a game. I reviewer A gives an 8
because the game
is "pretty good", and reviewer B gives an 8 because the game is
"wonderful", the 8
rating is ambiguous. Furthermore, descriptions of what each number
means should
be as clear and objective as possible. Words like good, great, OK
mean different
things to different people and should not be used. This is the most
difficult part of
devising a useful rating system. I don't propose to have the answer
yet, but currently
use the following (which I throw out for discussion):
5 I will still enjoy playing this game 10 years from now.
4 I enjoy playing this one so much that I feel compelled to explore
every nuance
possible.
3 Interesting/ fun enough that it will be taken out from time to
time, but does not have
an addictive quality.
2 I will most likely not play this game again.
1 Not only will I not play this again, but it has flaws/is broken.
I have opted to use a 5 point scale, but am considering moving to a 6
point scale. A
10 point scale has too many divisions to make clear distinctions
between all numbers
of the scale.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>I have opted to use a 5 point scale, but am considering moving to a 6
>point scale. A
>10 point scale has too many divisions to make clear distinctions
>between all numbers
>of the scale.
I use a seven-step system myself, based on the RPG Fudge:
+3 = A perennial favorite, or I'm sure it will become one.
+2 = Excellent game I'll play most anytime.
+1 = Good game, when I'm in the mood for its type.
0 = I'm neutral about this game. It's okay - not bad, not great.
-1 = I dislike this game and will only play it to accomodate good
friends who return the favor and play something I like ...
-2 = I really don't like this game and have to be dragged into
playing it.
-3 = I will not play this game, period.
Oddly enough, however, I don't use this system in my reviews, just
in my personal ratings. My personal ratings change too frequently
to publish in a review.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "I have always made it a point of not
s...@panix.com | carrying grudges over
Plymouth, NH, USA | from one life to the next"
www.io.com/~sos | -Mehitable, quoted by Don Marquis
Brian Leet
Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> I use a seven-step system myself, based on the RPG Fudge:
>
> +3 = A perennial favorite, or I'm sure it will become one.
> +2 = Excellent game I'll play most anytime.
> +1 = Good game, when I'm in the mood for its type.
> 0 = I'm neutral about this game. It's okay - not bad, not great.
> -1 = I dislike this game and will only play it to accomodate good
> friends who return the favor and play something I like ...
> -2 = I really don't like this game and have to be dragged into
> playing it.
> -3 = I will not play this game, period.
>
> Oddly enough, however, I don't use this system in my reviews, just
> in my personal ratings. My personal ratings change too frequently
> to publish in a review.
Nice plug for Fudge as well. While slightly off-topic I wanted to mention
my appreciation. I've been running a campaign with two close friends for
over two years now on IRC using that rules base a(nd lots of my
modifications) including a number of automatic dice rolling scripts.
We've all enjoyed the flexibility.
On the subject of rating games, the problem with a smaller rating spread
(5 or 6) is that inevitably it leads to proportionally more games getting
the "highest" rating. Thus it doesn't help people in your situation
(frankvf) who do purchase only a few games in a year. Regardless of what
words you associate with the highest rating, there will always be people
who play a game a few times and promptly give it whatever the best number
available is, due to their enthusiasm.
Perhaps the best way to resolve some of these problems is the possibility
of using some statiscal adjustments based on the set of ratings an
individual has placed. Thus if a player consistently rates most every
game either an 8, 9 or 10 then a rating of 10 from this player would have
less weight than a player who consistently rates games around 6 and only
occasionally gives out a 10. It having been a very long time since I have
dealt with advanced statistics, I'm not sure of the appropriate method for
doing this, but I'm confident algorithms exist. Sites such as Funagain do
weight ratings based on the number of reviews, but I'm not aware of any
that consider the typical review of the individual assigning the score.
Brian
Jonathan Arnold
> Players: 4+
> Publisher: McGartlin (self-published)
> Web: www.racingames.com
>
> I'm going to go over several games in this overview, but this one is the
> best of the bunch. Not just the best but also far and away the best. I've
Weird. We played this a couple of times and pretty much hated it. What's the
point of playing thru a game where the first 4/5ths don't matter hardly an
iota? It all comes down to the last couple of plays. Sure, there's jockeying
all over the place, but to no point at all. You might as well shuffle the
cars and play one hand, pratically. No one gets too far ahead and no one gets
too far behind, and you play it all for the last round or two. Ho hum.
+====================================================+
| Jonathan Arnold (mailto:jdar...@buddydog.org) |
| Amazing Developments http://www.buddydog.org |
+====================================================+
Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer
but wish we didn't. -- Erica Jong
frankvf
> I use a seven-step system myself, based on the RPG Fudge:
>
> +3 = A perennial favorite, or I'm sure it will become one.
> +2 = Excellent game I'll play most anytime.
> +1 = Good game, when I'm in the mood for its type.
> 0 = I'm neutral about this game. It's okay - not bad, not great.
> -1 = I dislike this game and will only play it to accomodate good
> friends who return the favor and play something I like ...
> -2 = I really don't like this game and have to be dragged into
> playing it.
> -3 = I will not play this game, period.
>
> Oddly enough, however, I don't use this system in my reviews, just
> in my personal ratings. My personal ratings change too frequently
> to publish in a review.
I like your +1 rating description. This could be one that I incorporate into
a six point system. I'm a little confused at your -1/-2 descriptions though,
because they seem to be the same to me. The -1 description conveys an accurate
description of how I feel about some games, but this is what I would consider
being dragged into playing a game.
frankvf
> On the subject of rating games, the problem with a smaller rating spread
> (5 or 6) is that inevitably it leads to proportionally more games getting
> the "highest" rating. Thus it doesn't help people in your situation
> (frankvf) who do purchase only a few games in a year. Regardless of what
> words you associate with the highest rating, there will always be people
> who play a game a few times and promptly give it whatever the best number
> available is, due to their enthusiasm.
This is why I feel that only experienced game players should rate
games, and only after having played the game many times. Expereinced
game players are probably quite familiar with the pattern of calling a
game "the best" and then having to explain why it's no longer "the
best" to their friends. They are less likely to make these mistakes
in the future. As for the 5/6 point rating system, I still feel that
is more important to have accurate descriptions of each rating number,
than to increase the amount of rating values. If you had a rating
system based on 100, you would have even less chance of many reviewers
giving a game the exact same rating. But the numbers would be less
meaningful. Person A loves T+E and gives it a 94/100. Person B loves
it just as much and gives it a 98/100. What do the ratings actually
tell you? I will agree with you that 5 values may be too small, but I
think 6 is just right. If almost everyone gives the game a 5/6, I can
look up the description of a 5 and be quite certain about how these
people feel about the game. A breakdown of the rating frequencies and
actual written reviews will complete the picture.
>
> Perhaps the best way to resolve some of these problems is the possibility
> of using some statiscal adjustments based on the set of ratings an
> individual has placed. Thus if a player consistently rates most every
> game either an 8, 9 or 10 then a rating of 10 from this player would have
> less weight than a player who consistently rates games around 6 and only
> occasionally gives out a 10. It having been a very long time since I have
> dealt with advanced statistics, I'm not sure of the appropriate method for
> doing this, but I'm confident algorithms exist. Sites such as Funagain do
> weight ratings based on the number of reviews, but I'm not aware of any
> that consider the typical review of the individual assigning the score.
I like this idea. Perhaps Graham Wills will post.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>> friends who return the favor and play something I like ...
>> -2 = I really don't like this game and have to be dragged into
>> playing it.
>I'm a little confused at your -1/-2 descriptions though,
>because they seem to be the same to me. The -1 description conveys an accurate
>description of how I feel about some games, but this is what I would consider
>being dragged into playing a game.
A -1 game is something I'll play with an, "All right, if you play
X with me afterwards," and then on to playing. No further statements
about my preferences.
A -2 game is similar but includes whining throughout the game.
Unpleasant for all concerned, hopefully enough so that I won't be
asked again.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "...to hell with anything unrefined
s...@panix.com | has always been my motto..."
Plymouth, NH, USA |
Dave Eggleston
> Unpleasant for all concerned, hopefully enough so that I won't be
> asked again.
For the sake of you and, especially, your gamemates, perhaps you should
switch your -2 behavior to your -3 behavior, refusing to play them
altogether.
- d
Richard Heli
<jdar...@buddydog.org> wrote:
>> Stock Car Racing Championship Card Game
>> Players: 4+
>> Publisher: McGartlin (self-published)
>> Web: www.racingames.com
>>
>> I'm going to go over several games in this overview, but this one is the
>> best of the bunch. Not just the best but also far and away the best. I've
>
>Weird. We played this a couple of times and pretty much hated it. What's the
>point of playing thru a game where the first 4/5ths don't matter hardly an
>iota? It all comes down to the last couple of plays. Sure, there's jockeying
>all over the place, but to no point at all. You might as well shuffle the
>cars and play one hand, pratically. No one gets too far ahead and no one gets
>too far behind, and you play it all for the last round or two. Ho hum.
How many players did you have? I think you should have quite a few,
at least 5, preferably more. Then the difficult thing is to try to
stay close to the lead and yet still save the right cards to make that
surge at the end.
Christopher L Weeks
Yup. I refuse to have a -2 category just because I think it's more
productive to just refuse to play the few games that I feel that strongly
about.
Chris
Henry Vogel
news:3b392991@news...
I don't know that I would agree with that assessment of Daytona 500. Yes,
the basic mechanic could be used for other racing games -- horse racing,
bicycle racing, that sort of thing -- but the mechanic would a lot of work
to fit into any other theme. Yes, the mechanic makes this more of a game of
card management, but the racing theme fits it very well.
Henry
Henry Vogel
"Richard Heli" <NOSPA...@best.com> wrote in message
news:o1tpjt49mu7nseqha...@4ax.com...
Richard is correct. If you had a small number of players, few enough that a
car could go from last to first with the play of only one or two cards, then
you didn't have enough people playing the game. I usually try to get at
least seven or eight players involved in a game and have had as many as 11.
In those situations, it's possible to LOSE position quickly -- in a couple
of games I've played, the player in first place starting the final turn of
the game fell all the way to last place before the race ended. To win the
race, though, you must have spent the race setting yourself up for this
final run to the finish.
Conversely, I've found that some of the games that are more popular, such as
Formula De, can be over before the game even begins. The player starting on
the pole position has an incredible advantage while the player starting in
the last position has virtually no chance of winning. Perhaps the games
I've played have been atypical in that regard, but it's certainly something
I've seen occur in most of the games I've played.
Henry
Jonathan Arnold
> least seven or eight players involved in a game and have had as many as 11.
Wow! I'm pretty sure we just played with 4, as that's how many decks the game
comes with. So you're saying in order to play it weill, you've got to have 2
maybe 3 copies of the game?
David Brain
(Brian Leet) wrote:
> Thus if a player consistently rates most every
> game either an 8, 9 or 10 then a rating of 10 from this player would
> have
> less weight than a player who consistently rates games around 6 and only
> occasionally gives out a 10.
(Although if that first player rated something a 2, you would have to
conclude that it was pretty bad.)
The last time I contributed to a similar thread I said that I basically
rated games either as 1 or 0 because I couldn't see any useful way to
distinguish - a game was either good or bad (IMO of course.) This binary
rating system might not be terribly helpful but it works for me... :-)
(OTOH I may well try out the Fudge system though because it allows a
*little* more movement!)
--
David Brain
A year away from Newsgroups and nothing much has changed.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not...
Geenius at Wrok
> The last time I contributed to a similar thread I said that I basically
> rated games either as 1 or 0 because I couldn't see any useful way to
> distinguish - a game was either good or bad (IMO of course.)
You could also call this the Duke Ellington method.
McklKnight
> game either an 8, 9 or 10 then a rating of 10 from this player would
> have
> less weight than a player who consistently rates games around 6 and only
> occasionally gives out a 10. >>
If you start looking at people's ratings on Boardgamegeek there are some really
interesting distributions from some posters.
One problem I have when rating games is that I like most of the games I play.
Even most of the "bad" European games are enjoyable better than most U.S.
games. To maintain a normal distribution and mean do I need to start giving
games I like 4 ratings?
When I rate a game I do give games I like a 5 or 6. I try to limit 7's to
really good games. 8's and 9's for my all-time favorites. It is not very
often I come across a game I find worthy of a 2, 3, or 4.
Mickel
Richard Heli
<jdar...@buddydog.org> wrote:
>> you didn't have enough people playing the game. I usually try to get at
>> least seven or eight players involved in a game and have had as many as 11.
>
>Wow! I'm pretty sure we just played with 4, as that's how many decks the game
>comes with. So you're saying in order to play it weill, you've got to have 2
>maybe 3 copies of the game?
Yeah, it really should be packaged with at least 8 decks, but then I
suppose that would penalize people who want 12 decks.
Dweeb
>> you didn't have enough people playing the game. I usually try to get at
>> least seven or eight players involved in a game and have had as many as
11.
>
>Wow! I'm pretty sure we just played with 4, as that's how many decks the
game
>comes with. So you're saying in order to play it weill, you've got to have
2
>maybe 3 copies of the game?
I played in the WBC final for this, and I believe there were 14 racers. GM
Mike Garton supplied all the decks, 1/20 scale cars (the "big ones" - he has
about 100 of them) and a graduated oval track. It was just about the most
fun I've ever had gaming.
We used a very interesting two-lane system that allowed two "drafts". The
outer draft could surge forward with the lead cars then dropping into the
inside. Or cars from the inside could swing out to pull away. It was not
only a hell of a lot of fun, but it was dramatically more realistic than any
other racing game I've ever played.
I think it's true that the "basic set" is kind of lame. You need at least 6
players.
The Maverick
>
> Yeah, it really should be packaged with at least 8 decks, but then I
> suppose that would penalize people who want 12 decks.
And a zillion dollars later you could have bought your own stock car
racing team instead. ;-) Unfortunately, as often as the game receives
praise here, I think it is overpriced unless you have a group where it
will be played regularly...
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
frankvf
> interesting distributions from some posters.
>
> One problem I have when rating games is that I like most of the games I play.
> Even most of the "bad" European games are enjoyable better than most U.S.
> games. To maintain a normal distribution and mean do I need to start giving
> games I like 4 ratings?
>
> When I rate a game I do give games I like a 5 or 6. I try to limit 7's to
> really good games. 8's and 9's for my all-time favorites. It is not very
> often I come across a game I find worthy of a 2, 3, or 4.
>
>
> Mickel
And this is exactly the problem with the lack of a common rating
system. You rate all time favorites as an 8 or 9, while I would
consider an 8 as a game which is addictive, but not an all time
favorite. Actually I'm surprised that a common rating system has not
yet been standardized. I wonder if the jury for the Spiel De Jahres
or Deutsche Spielpreis has some sort of standardized rating system
that could be used for the Internet Top 100. If so, I would also hope
that it doesn't use adjectives like "good" or "great" which could be
interpreted to convey a larger range of feelings than more concrete
descriptions.
McklKnight
I do not think we are disagreeing too much here. Differentiating "all time
favorites" and "addictive" is kinda hard. I was referring more to folks who
give every X-men game a 10 and Modern Art a 3. Or the fellow whoose lowest
rated game was a 7.
As to your point, developing a common rating system would be harder than
deciding wether to call the games we play Euro games or Designer game (a stupid
name IMO).
Mickel
Mickel
Greg deBeer
> favorites" and "addictive" is kinda hard. I was referring more to folks who
> give every X-men game a 10 and Modern Art a 3. Or the fellow whoose lowest
> rated game was a 7.
only one play is generally discouraged. But if I play a game once in a
gaming session, and really hate it, and everyone else really hates it,
we will probably want to play either something new, or an old
favorite. So the games that I play enough times to give a fair rating
to, are generally going to be the games that I like, at least
somewhat, so the majority of my scores, on a 1-10 scale, are going to
be above a 5, assuming that 5 is a neutral score, and anything lower
would indicate a I game that I dislike more than I like.
And who's to say giving every X-men game a 10 and Modern Art a 3 is
"wrong"? If someone is just messing with the system, that's one thing,
but if someone really feels that X-men is really his type of game, and
Modern Art just blows, should his votes be disregarded simply because
most rec.game.boarders would disagree?
-Greg
Henry Vogel
news:3B410D08...@volcano.net...
> Richard Heli wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it really should be packaged with at least 8 decks, but then I
> > suppose that would penalize people who want 12 decks.
>
> And a zillion dollars later you could have bought your own stock car
> racing team instead. ;-) Unfortunately, as often as the game receives
> praise here, I think it is overpriced unless you have a group where it
> will be played regularly...
>
> the Mav
Would have replied to this earlier if I hadn't gotten that virus last
weekend...
Anyway, I can understand why you believe the game is overpriced. But the
same could be said about most any game if you rarely have a chance to play
it. One thing I keep in mind concerning the McGartlin game is that it was
not produced by a large company. The card game is the only thing they have
ever made (or ever will make, it looks like). The cards are professionally
printed, which is expensive when printing in small quantities. The problem
with small print runs is that the fixed costs -- setting up the print run is
the big one -- cannot be spread over a large number of copies of the game.
As a personal thing, I also don't mind supporting small press game
publishers, particularly when they have such a fine game.
Henry